Hello everybody.

Just watched these amazing videos about "earth grow" at Neal Adam's site. At first sight, it looks like a good description of how the continents got there. It makes some sense, but then one must ignore almost all what geology says about the contintental drift, etc.
But after seeing the videos and looking for more "scientific" stuff to back up these claims, I got disappointed. There was not factually much there to back it up. The whole "mechanism" for how "new matter" builts up inside earth, just does not make it for me. I know too much about particle physics (although in no way an expert) and cosmology (same), to be receptive for such a theory.
So, I thought let's look at other info, and that's how I found this discussion. I tried to read this thread in total, but due to lack of time, I could only read half of it.

I'm not a geologist, but I do know some basics.

First of all, the theory of "growing earth", would state that there was only expansion of the crust, moving plates away from each other and creating new plates with relative young age (under the oceans).

So the first question then would be: how do you explain that (as we observe) still now today plates seem to crush into each other. They would need to spread outwards, not inwards!!!

Next, another difference would be that Pangea would be some sort of super-island, with seas all around it, while in your model this was just the total crust of the whole earth, which was then significantly smaller.

This makes a difference, of course, since you claim then that some land parts, which are now on totally different continents, would have lied close to each other, and would have need to have similar features. Same deposits of material, same magnetic field orientation for rocks that are same age, etc.
In the pangea model, these parts had not been connected and would not need to show of similar features.
So the existence or absence of such features would be good material that could either falsify or support your theory.

So, my next question would be, what evidence do you have that this was the case? There should be a lot of similar features, in the same fashion as that geology has shown where continental plates used to be connected, also have similar features?

The third thing is, you theory merely assumes that all of the continental drift was only a spreading drift, based on an increase in size of the earth. For the mechanism, you assume that this was based on the earth accumulating more matter from outer space and/or the sun.

My third question is then, how did this effect the orbit of earth around the sun and the orbit of the moon around earth?
Not clear to me, but you assume (in contrast to current pov. by science) that the moon was formed seperate from earth, and not by a collision of a mars-sized object that hit earth and formed the moon?
And the sun itself, does it loose mass, or accrete/create mass? Has the sun also become more massive, like earth? How did that effect it's radiation/power, and how does that coincide with the data found on earth?
If there was a significant change in the power of the sun, wouldn't that be likely to effect plant and animal life on earth?
Same for change in orbit size.


The fourth comment is that I think you are simply mistaken about how gravity works near the center of the earth. The pressure is building up. It is true of course that exactly at the center the force of gravity cancels out.
But it we have two heavy trucks, the same weight and the same motor power standing front-to-front of each other, and have full motor power, then of course, since the forces balance, there is no nett movement, hence no nett-force. But do you agree, that this is somewhat different then the situation in which both trucks are standing at the same place, but with the motor switched off? I mean, there IS a LOT OF pressure near the center of gravity of earth, as it builds up the deeper one goes (and the temperature risis also).

Is there any real proof where the Moon came from? There are only theories about it. If you have the proof please submit it as I am starting to discuss it in another thread. "Graviton decay and the expanding Earth hypothesis. "

I was there. It was a gift from Fronce, a planet in a neighboring system. On the backside, facing out, is a plaque that says "Give me your uncertain, your skeptical, yearning to doubt. But, shhh, don't tell them the secret."

But, no, I have no proof. And what would proof be anyway? Doubters even disbelieve NASA went to space.

I have to admit, the videos are beautiful and compelling. Given the immense ramifications of this theory I wish some mathematical models could be made available. My knowledge of geology is remedial but I do find it fascinating how all the continents fit together so perfectly when the planets and moons are contracted.

Besides lacking mathematically, one observational factor bothers me. If all the suns, planets and moons have been growing forever, why do we not see massive suns and planets anywhere? If our sun is a second generation sun – some 4.5 billion years old and our planets have grown to their present size, why would we not be able to observe older, first generation suns with planets of gargantuan size? I know our sun has a lifespan of only ~10 billion years, but wouldn’t smaller stars that burn much longer keep growing too, as well as any planets surrounding them?

Perhaps more technologically advanced telescopes may some day provide the answers.

To the audience on this board: I am posting for Neal Adams:

Thanks for the kind response for the vids.
Of course, our universe is only 14.5 billion or less years old, if that, and if my theory is true, not even this can be depended on. It's possible the universe simply grows outward and outward and we are in a newer area. It may be that since all bodies grow the sun began 10 billion years ago as a Condrite meteorite of a small star . Such a theory is far-reaching in it's implication and changes. We do of course have massive suns and suns so massive that they explode and spread their basic constituate parts all over. Planets could become stars without much of a stretch of the imagination.
If Earth exponentially grew fourfold in 300 million years, it will be the size of Saturn in about 400 million years. What size then will Jupiter be? And its moons will easily become planets. Many larger than Earth. Another Solar System,....already begun.


If our sun is a second generation sun – some 4.5 billion years old and our planets have grown to their present size, why would we not be able to observe older, first generation suns with planets of gargantuan size? I know our sun has a lifespan of only ~10 billion years, but wouldn't smaller stars that burn much longer keep growing too, as well as any planets surrounding them?

Perhaps more technologically advanced telescopes may some day provide the answers.

Now some of my own comments:

The moon has been proven to be hollow . . . for lack of a better word as has the earth . . . (P & S waves) I'm not an expert on this, but others have confirmed such notions. As for the moon vibrational soundings were done when the landings occurred . . . . EE has several pieces of evidence which supports manufacture of materials from within a body . . . like the moon giving off gases (supposedly a dead world?) and an electromagnetic theory which is outstanding . . . showing how cosmic rays (photons) can be split into electron/positron components in opposite directions . . . well I won't go into all of it. This is just to wet your appetite. It also goes into "lattice structure" of atomic cores instead of strong forces . . . Neutrons being bi-polar electron/proton particles capable of keeping a nucleus together without this imaginary force (just good old fashioned electro-magnetism at work . . . there is math for this too using Coulombs’ law . . . in He for instance the force is nearly 9 times the force of two protons to push each other apart. In this case it's all in how you stack it. Subduction does not occur as prescribed by others, but rather squeezing, continents crashing into each other is a myth . . . they spread and stretch, mountains are formed from such spreading (bunching and folding). Geologists out there . . . there is even elegant proof to debunk the famous Be10, CaCO3 theories you hold your ground on. There is just too much here to touch base on. I'm not an expert in any of this, but I am a discriminating scientist . . . if you want to talk to experts come visit us at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/expanding_earth/
We welcome anyone who wants to listen, chat, debate, debunk, or be enlightened. We ask that you bring an open mind, or at least a scientific skepticism . . . but if you don't we'll do our best to show you why you need one anyways. If you're interested in any of this wonderful "NEW" science that is too elegant to be wrong . . . stop by or ask us some questions.

Posting for someone else is against the rules.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I wouldn't assume that all doubters can be made certain of any truth but it's possible and perhaps even beneficial to raise the level of certainty on a public scale.

If the scenario wasn't so absurd it would be tragic. That humanity's knowledge has become hostage to a renegade scientific community which attempts to prop up a bankrupt model of cosmology. It's become as corrupt as the worst political entities deceiving the people while in truth only buttressing their own power.

The Big Bang and constancy of energy and matter are now a joke. In wake of the slap on the face these theories received by Hubble's discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelarating, science has now resorted to unabashed sorcery and witchcraft to explain it... instead of admitting they may have been wrong. They now tell us that a mysterious Dark Energy, which comprises more than 75% of the universe is responsible for this. They also tell us they know nothing about it nor what it could be but we're expected to buy it because they're the scientists.

They tell us that subduction maintains a fixed size Earth. Such a sad joke. There's no relationship between newly appearing magmatic crust and subduction. How can subduction eat up exactly the same amount of matter appearing at the Mid Ocean Ridges?

They never thought this through. They simply built a house of cards and now their honor and livelihood is on the line and the house is falling.

We need to raise the level of certainty and the voice of the people against this hijacking of our knowledge.

We have the evidence for Growing Earth. Growing universe is the new cosmology model for tomorrow's science.

We're very fortunate to be in the middle of it and bringing it about. All of us... everyone here.

Because that's where the matter from the Mid Oceanic Ridges comes from?

Seriously. This is a basic tenet of geology, here. Besides, it's not like we haven't been keeping measurements of the Earth for thousands of years or anything.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

There exist vastly more stretches of MORs and matter appearing from them than subduction zones and the amount subducting. Just look at the ocean floor age map. There's no relationship between the amount of matter we can see appearing and the theory of subduction. That it becomes a tenet by default rejection of expansion doesn't make it true or reasonable. Especially in light of visible and known evidence.

If someone's been measuring the Earth for thousands of years then they've failed to tell anyone about it. We've had GPS for 20 but GPS cannot yet give us an accurate measurment of the circumference or diameter of the Earth. Look at how GPS stations are located across the planet and you'll see that the measurement is compiled from a zig zagged line because the stations are all over the place. There's no straight line of GPS stations going around the Earth to give us an accurate measurement, yet.

"Just look at"? I hope you aren't talking about another subjective "look at the picture" argument.

Ok, what is your specific quantitative evidence?

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratost...t_of_the_Earth

Define "accurate." What are the numbers? What are the error margins?

Given all the data points, isn't that a good thing? What's the issue?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I'm talking about the length and extent of the MORs vs. that of the active subduction zones. They're visible and measurable. No image interpretation needed.

There is much evidence. One example is that the ocean floor areas on the "other side" of the subduction zones, facing the continental shelves, are the same age as the ocean floor areas on the subducting side, facing the mid-ocean ridges. Because subduction only occurs on one side of the zones, facing the mid-ocean ridges, the "other side" should show evidence of being much older, geologically, because it does not subduct. Yet, no such evidence exists. It's the same on both sides. The theory that the entire ocean floor coming from the MORs is subducting suffers a call for introspection in light of this.

Forgive me, I believed we were speaking about evidence indicating the Earth has not grown an inch or more per year. Not an ancient mathematic estimate of the Earth's circumference which can't provide such conclusive information.

For the sake of conclusive or even reasonable evidence, we'd need measurments of the circumference of the Earth accurate to the fraction of an inch. The error margin is about a fraction of an inch. We don't yet have such measurments for the entire circumference of the Earth.

It's a good thing for measuring between two points but not good for ascertaining a comprehensive measurement of the entire circumference of the planet. These measurements, over the last decade or so, show fluctuations from year to year. Some show contradictions between numbers from the same stations derived through varying systems. Given that the assumed growth is not uniform at any given time and location on the globe, as indicated by ocean floor age, a progressive increase or decrease between specific stations does not accurately reflect the overall measurement of the Earth's circumference. Because the line connecting the GPS stations is not a straight line, let's say at the equator, rather zig-zags north and south as it rides around the Earth due to the positon of the varying stations, the discrepencies found in the measurements from year to year do not yet give us any indication or pattern to determine whether there is an increase in the overall circumference.

One thing which appears certain is that there is notable fluctuation of distance between many GPS stations measured. What it all means remains unclear.

Why does the length of mid-ocean ridges have to match the length of subduction zones?

Wouldn't it be possible for a subduction zone to have a higher throughput than a mid-ocean ridge of the same length?

The Earth's circumference can change by a fraction of an inch if I lay a stick of butter on the ground. I don't think that's the effect you're looking for.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

It is quite unlikely that we can assume such a notable discrepancy between the processes and it's never been satisfactorally addressed by the scientific community, nor has any evidence of the throughput of subduction zones been presented, other than assuming that it's the same exact amount as that appearing at the MORs collectively -- all based on a pre-supposition that the Earth has always been the same size. The theory was developed backwards based on this pre-conceived notion and is presented today as gospel. But even assuming that it's possible, subduction accounting for maintaining a fixed size Earth flies in the face of visible evidece we see on the ocean floor.

The ocean floor tectonic plates, for example, are 5-10 miles thick granite slabs. While it's purported that they act as a "liquid" over long geological time ranges (a highly questionable supposition), while they're on the ocean floor they are quite solid and must behave as 5-10 mile thick solid granite slabs.

If the subduction zone throughput is so much higher, we should see evidence for plates pushing into each other all over the ocean floor in order to positon themselves into the zones to subduct. The whole ocean floor should be a massive pile-up of oceanic slabs that would bottle-neck into the subduction zones, causing volcanoes and earthquakes all over the ocean floor, not only at the subduction zones. But the ocean floor is completely smooth and free of any such evidence.

Here's an idea of the discrepancy in proportions:



The black lines are MORs where new magmatic matter and ocean crust is appearing. It all pushes outwardly from the black lines in both opposite facing directions. This crustal matter becomes hard granite slabs as soon as it cools on the surface. How can all that push its way together into the few subduction zones we see without piling up in slabs as wide stretches try to bottleneck into relatively small subduction zones - and still leave no trace of such a process? How can all this be happening when the ocean floor is compeletely smooth indicating a unified surface free of bottle-necking slabs?

Moreso, if the rate of subduction is so much higher than MOR output, we should see evidence of subducting plates today at these zones. Somewhere on the Earth there should be evidence of at least some plates in the process of subduction. The only evidence we've seen was an oceanic slab which jutted upwardly in the Pacific - not subducting. Hardly the type of evidence needed for subduction, as was then claimed.

Granted, that an expanding/growing Earth raises new questions in Geology, Physics and Cosmology relating to where the new mass causing Earth growth would come from - and opens a pandora's box on the issue of the creation of matter. But these are separate issues than the theory of subduction, which must hold it's own in order to support the far reaching claims it makes. It does not appear to do so.

The assumed growth rate based on ocean floor age is 1 to several inches of increase in Earth circumference per year. This is the range of accuracy we need if we're to measure from year to year beginning today. I agree that we're not looking for the effect you mention. What this means, however, is that claims indicating we have measurments proving the Earth remains at a fixed size are not corroborated by any true facts. These claims are too easily bantered about and are grossly misleading. I've heard respected physicists make these claims as if such data is truly available - but it is not.

Baloney. It's available; I studied it in a college geology class. People would indeed be able to show an increasing Earth. Even assuming only one inch a year, that becomes noticeable fairly quickly with modern instrumentation.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

That's a rather general statement and not very scientific. What specific proven accurate measurments did you study about that show this?

Actually, that's the question you need to answer. It is your claim that the Earth's circumference is increasing by some amount. It is up to you to present the specific quantitative evidence for your claim.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Regarding this, I was responding to this general statement:

And, of course, it has been. You did not specify accuracy of measurement in your original statement.

So it seems pretty clear that you are stating you do not have "conclusive or even reasonable evidence" for your claim. That seems to close the issue until you can gather the evidence, unless you have something specific to add. Do you?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I've been racking my brain for the term that is used by geophysicists when they study this, the idea of taking a complete circuit of the world and analyzing the ins and outs. O yeah, I think that's it, the global plate circuit.

So, those things have been done, and there are anomalies and problems that crop up all the time, but there is no disparity that would necessarily cause us to conclude that the earth was expanding. They're working on it, and have been.

As to your ideas about subduction zones--they are not just a fixed and finite number of "drains" where all crust must go to die. New subduction zones appear to be created whenever conditions are right, the plates don't have to "bottleneck" to fit into existing ones.

Let's just go through a few basic assertions of this post.


Not quite sure what this rather rambling sentence says, but the idea that the earth has always been the same size is not a "notion" or an assumpotion, it is a conclusion. the conclusion was drawn by the failure of expanding earth ideas of the 50's and 60's to come up with direct evidence for explansion. this failure of the expansionsist forced people interested in global tectonics to see other explanations - like plate tectonics.

Subduction fits very well what we see on and beneath the seafloor. It is consistent with the age relationships of the ocean crust, deep crustal seismic of active margins, first motion studies of earthquakes in these areas, the distribution of earthquakes along them, and the distribution of gravitational anomalies. Subduction is also the best explanation for the structural deformation in active margins, the bulk and trace element composition of igenous rocks in island arcs. latsly laser ranging, long baseline interferomentry and high resolution GPS is all good evidence for it.

Oceanic crust is basaltic, not granitic. No tectonicist says that the ocean crust behaves as a liquid over long period of time. Quite the contrary, they behave as rigid structures (that is why it is called plate tectonics". The underlying aesthenosphere deforms plastically, but that is a different story.


Thew ocean floor is not completely smooth. There are fracture zones, transcurrent faults and other evidence of differential movement.

Once again the ocean crust is not made of granite or completely smooth.

There is abundant evidence of subduction in many places round the world. The Caribbean, Scotia, Cretan, Javan, Tongan, Japan, Marianas, Chile, Central Amereican, and Aleutian trenches for example. Many of these are shown, together with the measured convergence direction the the diagram you posted.

Your lack of familiarity with geological facts known to first year students does not make you a good judge as to the validity of subduction as a scientific theory.

Jon

Wow. I missed that he said this. Yeah, that statement was wrong. What exciting evidence of a lack of study!

Heck, as I said, we've got a subduction fault causing most of the earthquakes in my immediate vicinity. The Cascadia fault zone is primarily subductive.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Indeed!

While we all make from time to time authorative statements about subjects we known little, I am always surprised by people who maintain poorly founded opinionswhen faced by people who do know. Moon hoaxers when contructed by space scientists and engineers. Young earthers when confronted by theologians and geologists.

But perhaps I shouldn't. It is easier to say you are right than admit you are wrong.

Jon

How can all this be happening when the ocean floor is compeletely smooth indicating a unified surface free of bottle-necking slabs?

Mayhaps someone hasn't heard of the Mariana and Tongan Trenches (or others.)

in fact here's a couple of very nice maps

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I recently discovered your videos online Neal and there are a couple of Items that stand out (aside from others already mentioned in this thread)

why can prime matter not be detected if it fills the universe(mass, opacity, volume)?

why would pangea flood in the middle based on your center of gravity argument(as per your video claiming that it did not exist because we cannot detect the flooding)? I have looked at the diagram that you draw and you seem to imply the center of gravity is in a vertical line along the axis of rotation. Your video states that it is basic physics, if so it should be easy to explain.

for anyone else I found the videos at
http://www.nealadams.com/morescience.html